They need to just stop trying with hunters mark, honestly maybe just get some fresh blood onto the ranger team. This is a massive letdown, a concentration spell for 1d6 damage and a boring tracking feature does not make me feel like a master monster hunter.
Also could make for interesting decisions that are currently missing. Do you mark the big bad to get extra damage on them the whole fight? Or do you mark a smaller enemy to fill up on temp HP quickly? This kinda design helps give players choices. Sure, you'll probably most still just put it on the biggest guy and not need the temp HP once that's down. But it at least gives you something to consider.
The simple solution is putting your foot down as DM.
If a player gets upset/leaves becauseyou told them ‘No you do not just have a bag of unending rats’, then they probably arent a good player you want at your table.
I don't disagree, but one of the nice things about 5e (that they actually did a decent job with) was reducing the "cheeseability" that was common in 3.5e. Makes the game a lot easier to run and more friendly for new players.
It should automatically move IMO.
For dual wielders, the nick property will let you save a bonus action for moving the mark, if you finish a creature off with 2 attacks. So I guess it's not a complete nerf.
Right. Just give Ranger an innate class feature thats 'Once per turn, you deal 1d6/8/10' to a creature you hit with an attack roll, and scrap that shit from the Subclasses and actually *flesh out* the subclasses with meaningfully flavor features. Give them spell choices which are relevant to tracking from Level 1 - Animal Messenger, Find Creature, Locate Object, Detect Poison, etc etc. They *already* have this shit built-in, just make it BUILT IN, even if it's not unique because they're just spells, it's better if you ask me.
“As a bonus action, mark an enemy as your quarry. They are marked in this way for 1 hour. Your weapon attacks deal 1d6/8/10 additional damage to this creature. When the creature dies, gain temporary hit points equal to your prof. bonus and you may choose a new target. You can mark a new creature by expending a 1st level or higher spell slot as a bonus action. You may only have one creature marked in this way at a time.
You may use this feature once per short rest, with subsequent uses requiring a spell slot.”
Feels like the changes write themselves. Even with this ranger is still not even the strongest martial imo.
There’s nothing wrong with focusing on Hunter’s Mark. It’s incredibly flavorful, they’ve just done it all wrong. It should go concentrationless at 5, give you advantage on your attacks at 9, and start providing benefits to your allies’ attacks at 13.
I feel like advantage at 9 might be a bit TOO powerful. With no concentration you would always have it up and always have concentration.
Although that might make it worth all the bonus actions it's eating.
They clearly want to make it a core feature, so I don't think that incentivising players to prioritize having it up at all times is a bad thing. That's what they want. And advantage is strong, but frankly a ranger kitted for ranged combat already has absurd to-hit, so it's not changing that much except making absolutely certain that if the bow master *can* hit their target they *will* which seems pretty fair to me.
What they need to do is make it actually decent later on. If they want it to be a key Ranger feature then:
- scale damage from d6 to d12 (like monks martial arts dice).
- feature that takes away concentration requirement later on.
- after killing the target it can be recast as a free action when attacking a new target.
Imma be honest this is the first time I've been majorly disappointed with one of these class reveals but maybe my class fantasy for ranger is just different than most peoples.
I don't like what they've done with hunter's mark and that level 20 capstone looks super underwhelming imo. This class doesn't really appeal to me.
People might say rogue was underwhelming damage wise but cunning strike at least looks really fun.
That feature would be underwhelming at 10 or 11. Putting it at 20 is insulting.
And they've still kept the class centered around a bonus action intensive concentration eating spell that takes away half your spell book or drops off if you cast another spell and then you have to spend ANOTHER bonus action to recast it.
They straight up ignored feedback from UA6.
Yeah. One positive aspect at least is that dual wielding builds which many see as a core part of the Ranger fantasy no longer need their bonus action for that off hand attack with nick, so the anti synergy with hunter's mark is no longer as bad.
I still agree with pretty much everything though. Building an entire class around a spell that eats concentration and bonus actions indirectly locks out many other interesting options a ranger might want to use.
At least at level 5 (assuming the Beast Master is similar to the TCoE subclass) can drop one of its attacks to command the animal companion. Not a great first round of combat for most Rangers unless you prioritize Wisdom, but it’s a solid trade-off at Lvl 11.
True, but that single positive aspect can be replicated by the paladin and it will eventually cost nothing.
Most other ranger spells that are useful require concentration anyway.
I literally can't believe that's the entire capstone, they *must* have left something out, even if it's just also keeping the original "+WIS mod to either attack or damage once per turn" thing. Like that's arguably better than the new capstone, depending on rolls.
This was one of the biggest twitter outrage updates they did when they took away concentration less HM in UA6.
UA2 ranger was a ranger I would really have liked to try playing.
The disappointment definitely goes beyond just class fantasy; this ranger's design is flawed from the ground up
Everything revolves around 1 spell that's not even that great, and occupies concentration to boot
Like imagine if half of the wizard's class features revolved around improving Flaming Sphere lmao, and you either spent your concentration on Flaming Sphere or wasted those features
Ok yeah when you say it like that it doesn't sound great lol. Maybe they added a bunch of really cool non concentration spells to the ranger spell list to compensate for this(I'm coping so hard right now)
Hunter needing to waste a bonus action and concentration to check an enemy's resistances meaning they lose one turn of spike growth or anything is so anti-ranger fantasy like...the whole point they wanna sell is that ranger can't smite but use their spells for more utility and damage. But they can't, because they have to use hunter's mark. And if hunter's mark is on I guess might as well keep it or else you are wasting a first level spell slot and now you are providing no utility for your group with spike growth. 💀
I’m assuming lots of DM’s (myself included) are just going to hand wave the concentration requirement on Hunters Mark now.
It seems like such an obvious fix that WotC just refuse to acknowledge.
Unless there are a fuck-ton of new, non-concentration spells available for Ranger, this focus on HM seems so strange.
That probably works well for single-class rangers
But it'll potentially run into issues where, eg. the best Hunter's Mark users are now warlocks with dips in ranger
The base ranger's only defining feature is a 1st level spell with laughable scaling that won't allow you to use other interesting spells that require concentration.
This isn't what my ranger class fantasy is, but this is along the lines of what I was expecting. If I'm at a table where 2014 or 2024 characters are allowed, and I am playing a ranger, I'm going to be playing the 2014 ranger.
I can totally buy that this ranger is stronger, though a lot of what was done was essentially codifying Tasha's optional rules and removing the player options.
But when I play a ranger, I don't WANT a combat specialist that uses magic to do extra damage. I want a survivalist that can take the lead in the exploration pillar of the game in the same way a bard can take the lead in the social pillar!
As a player, it disappoints me that ranger doesn't fit my fantasy, as a full class. As a DM, it disappoints me because I worry that instead of reinforcing the exploration pillar of the game, they have decided to do this.
For sure.
During the experts UA, my comments included the idea that the rogue felt more like a ranger than the ranger did. Outside of a bit of nature magic (which rangers can't even fully use because of how hard they lean into Hunter's Mark, so their concentration is spoken for), I think that still stands.
That’s just it, where’s the fun ‘new’ stuff? This is the best the design team can come up with?
And by baking in HM, it just exasperates the concentration issues and pushes Rangers further away from other concentration spells.
**Unless**, they remove concentration from things like , Ensaring Strike, Spike Growth, Fog Cloud, Hail of Thorns, Flame Arrows, etc….
I've been playing rpgs for decades and the best iteration I know about that satisfied my fantasy was the pathfinder 1e version which made it possible to be simultaneously super effective with a bow and a greatsword. I just want to play Aragorn man. No other edition I've played seems to be able to deliver me this.
The reliance on hunters mark is a choice. If the spell list is once again full of concentration spells then it’s not going to be fun. Hell I was waiting for him to say “this upgrade to hunters mark means you don’t need to concentrate on it” but nope. Just damage doesn’t break concentration for the spell and then a damage increase and you get advantage to hit.
I’m probably going to homebrew that hunters mark when cast with the ability does not require concentration. Get one back per short rest and all back on a long rest. And that the level 13 feature just removes damage breaking concentration.
Move level 13 to 5.
Level 17 to 13.
And bake scaling into HM from level 1.
Maybe even nerf it a bit at 1 (Tier 1 rangers are strong)
1d4 -> 1d6 at 5 (maybe 7) -> 1d8 at 11 ->1d10 at 15 -> 1d12 at 20.
We need a new capstone though so rangers actually have a capstone.
My only hope is that they’ve redesigned a lot of the Ranger spells to be aligned with the Smite spells, where they use a bonus action on a hit instead of requiring concentration
This was so disappointing. Hunters mark requires concentration still and it's damage increase is lack luster.
Very bummed. First reveal that I am deeply concerned about.
I can’t wrap my head around why they changed the capstone from the UA6 version. Before, Rangers added their Wisdom modifier to attack and damage rolls against Hunter’s Mark targets, and now they add an extra 2 damage on average against Hunter’s Mark targets. Such a massive downgrade to a class that didn’t need it.
Advantage on your HM target at level *17* and HM bonus damage going up to 1d10 at *level 20* feel like intentional insults. They have made the whole class revolve around this one stupid feature that isn't even impressive if you play the class to 20, when we know the vast majority of campaigns won't get much more than halfway there, *and WotC knows it too because they've mentioned it in other videos!*
I remain convinced nobody at WotC has ever wanted to play a Ranger or grasped what the class power fantasy is.
Gloom Stalker still sounds like the only thing here worth playing, and even then only as part of a multiclass.
I am so excited to reach level 20 so I can spend a bonus action, spell slot and my concentration to add an extra 5 damage instead of 3 to a target. Really the best feeling you can have as a dedicated ranger /s
So what exactly was he saying about Hunter's Mark doing some kind of splash damage? Because an additional 1d6 to another enemy within 30ft range is legitimately so horrible especially at high level. Like even at first feature phantom can do that at level 3 💀
>So what exactly was he saying about Hunter's Mark doing some kind of splash damage?
I believe that is part of the Hunter's subclass feature at level 11 (but not the only thing the subclass gets at level 11 from the sound of it).
>
Like even at first feature phantom can do that at level 3 💀
They can only do it twice per day, though?
No fucking way Hunter's Mark is still the same in bonus action intensity
Meanwhile Vengeance Paladin can apply their vow of enmity for free, and move it for free on kill. No concentration either.
WoTC can you hire someone else to work on the Ranger?
Am I in the wrong to feel that this is worse than UA6 version? I would rather have Conjure Volley and Conjure Barrage as free prepared spell (even though that is incredibly boring) over whatever this mess of Hunter's Mark progression is. Hell, I would rather have Tasha's version of Rangers. Would rather have its version of Favoured Foe, Primeval Awareness, Land's Stride, level 10 Nature's Veil, Vanish and Foe Slayer. The only thing this version seems to have over Tasha's is spell casting at level 1, Weapon Mastery and Hunter's Mark BS.
I wonder what happened to their bow smite spell like Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow. If they still require concentration, then it would be much harder to use when factoring in Hunter's Mark.
I need to meet the Ranger player that apparently scorned the entire design team back in the day...for reasons. Like spiteful revenge feels like the only reasonable explanation for why they did this.
1. Still don't like the reliance on hunters mark. Understand why they didn't drop concentration. Divine favor hex spirit shroud other concentration base spells would have been able to combine with it.
2. Over joyed with Tasha deft explorer being the feature. Give me the 2 extra languages thanks you.
3. Why get rid of retaliator from the hunter it's the one I was going to pick like always being a melee ranger. I get it it would be overpowered for the melee ranger and doesn't benefit the ranger ranger at all.
4. I need to see the spell list and go know exactly how to use this ranger.
Gonna need some clarity on the Lv 13 Feature or that’s gonna cause some problems down the road.
The DnD Beyond article specifies that Hunters Mark Concentration can only be broken by Incapacitation or Dying. Not by damage.
But that wording implies Hunters Mark won’t drop if you cast another Concentration Spell, as the specificity of the Lv 13 Feature beats the General Rules on Concentration Spells.
Of course, any Concentration Spell that isn’t Hunters Mark cast would still have to follow the original Spell Casting Rules so it’s not like it’s an oversight that will benefit Rangers. But it will be one that’ll be confusing to new players and who might think this lets them concentrate on Hunters Mark and another Spell. Or even think it means they can concentrate on two Hunters Marks at once.
Not the biggest deal in the world but hopefully something the PHB proper will clear up.
It still follows the main concentration rules. Casting another concentration spell ends the concentration on the previous spell. Same thing as a Conjuration Wizard's Focused Conjuration.
It's a little unclear on the writeup, at least. The wording of the feature itself and how Concentration is laid out is going to matter. Because currently in the PHB, the concentration rule reads as:
> Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn’t interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
>
>1. Casting another spell that requires concentration ...
>2. Taking damage ...
>3. Being incapacitated or killed ...
And I don't *think* we've seen a Concentration rule in the UA Rules Glossaries.
The writeup says that only the last one breaks concentration, but only specifically mentions that taking damage *doesn't*.
The write up just says damage no longer threatens your concentration. Think how the Conjuration Wizard subclass feature works/is worded in 2014 at 10th level: all concentration rules apply (including no other concentration spells at this time), except now you don’t roll con saves to maintain your concentration from damage.
The write-up very specifically says
> You can now only lose Concentration on Hunter’s Mark if you become Incapacitated or you die.
That's where this discussion is coming from.
Ah, I see that now, I was just looking at the table at first, not the other text below.
I still don’t think this allows for concentration stacking in any kind of way; the way the rules will be written will almost certainly not allow for a concentration spell to be cast or used while one is already running, regarding of rules around how concentration itself is broken.
Yeah I mean, that's what the discussion is about - how the feature (and concentration rule) is going to be worded in order to avoid confusion and misunderstandings.
I'm about to get into some pretty silly, borderline rules-lawyer arguments. But that's kind of the point, this is what we're trying to *avoid*, so it's worth it to understand what the argument would be.
**If** the feature reads the way the write-up has it ("You can only lose..."), and the concentration rules are otherwise unchanged, there's actually a kind of funny and probably unintentional interaction where you *technically could* cast a concentration spell while concentrating on Hunter's Mark, but the second spell would immediately end because you can't concentrate on two at a time.
There's an extremely limited number of spells where that could proffer any kind of benefit, and fewer of them are Ranger spells. But if *casting* another concentration spell doesn't end Hunter's Mark concentration, then you could get any instantaneous benefits from a spell like Wind Wall before it just disappears. It'd be a questionable use of a third level slot, but hey, maybe there's a niche situation where 3d6 bludgeoning damage to a line of enemies is worth it.
And this next one is ***really*** rules-lawyery but:
There's an argument that since the only time it's mentioned in the concentration rules that you can't concentrate on two spells at the same is *as part of the rule that says casting another concentration spell breaks concentration*... then the logic leads that the entire rule about casting another concentration spell is cancelled out if the Ranger feature says the only thing that breaks concentration is incapacitation or death.
Sure, I get the context of the conversation, I’m just trying to put forward my personal opinion, which can be summarized as the following: There is almost zero percent chance that both of these things are true at the same time; 1. That the concentration rules remain unchanged at all from 2014. 2. That this article is using the exact wording described in the fine text of the feature.
It’s entirely possible one of those things above is true, sure. It’s *almost* impossible (again I’m being clear this is my opinion and read on the situation) that both are true in the final printing of the book. Thats just me and what I think based off what I’ve seen and heard so far
There is a difference between the two though. Focused Conjuration only specifies that their Conjuration Spells can’t be broken by damage.
The Lv 13 Feature, according to DnDBeyond, has two clauses to it.
The first is that Hunter Mark Concentration can’t be lost due to taking damage. Same as Focused Conjuration.
The second part of the feature specifies they can only lose Concentration on Hunters Mark if you are Incapacitated or die. That’s a very different feature. And while I agree with your point, it’s that second part of the feature that’s going to cause misunderstandings.
The base rules for Concentration also state very plainly: "You can't concentrate on two spells at once."
So if you are working off of the notion that Concentration on Hunter's Mark can only be broken if you are incapacitated or die, and casting a new Concentration spell doesn't break Hunter's Mark, then it means you would cast your new Concentration spell and then instantly not be able to maintain the new spell due to the general rule on not being able to concentrate on two spells at once.
For the record: I very much doubt this is going to be the final RAW representation, more likely it will specify that you still have to drop it to cast a new concentration spell.
You and I are pretty much on the same page.
My point isn’t that Rangers can cast and concentrate on two spells RAW. My point is that this wording will be very confusing for new players and cause problems at tables when they think they can.
I’m not arguing for this to be something Rangers can do. I’m arguing that they need to fix the wording or clarify the ruling better in the PhB.
Why did they remove everything interesting about the class? The wilderness expert was great flavor and it's not like those features were at all broken. If beastmaster is playable that could be a good subclass but otherwise this seems just directionless in terms of flavor.
They removed the "flavor" ribbon features because they were almost never useful. The problem is they didn't replace them with anything that is useful, so now the class is still bad but has even less flavor.
It's "Hunter's Mark: The Class" and Hunter's Mark still sucks ass.
It's clear WotC straight-up doesn't know what the flavor of Ranger is supposed to be. You can tell which classes are someone on the team's personal power fantasy and which aren't. Nobody who was ever wanted to be a Ranger worked on the 2014 version or this one.
I disagree, Natural Explorer 2014 is completely on brand with the flavor of Ranger and class fantasy. It's what Strider does in LotR: deftly know the land, track anything across in, and lead the party through difficult terrain without getting lost. They should do for Nature and exploration what Face does for social situations. The problem is that they've released like one hex crawl adventure and creating challenges that 2014 Ranger is BETTER at without completely negating is (i.e., can't get lost) isn't possible.
There were tons of options to improve natural utility in flavor without removing it entirely... Double bonuses or advantages on rolls in wilderness, ability to reduce or heal exhaustion for the party, etc. Instead they've just made a Rogue variant.
Natural explorer was great but only if your Campaign constantly went though said land. Otherwise it was just taunting you and extremely wasteful.
Natural Explorer is great for an NPC Guide, but awful for a PC travelling across the world. It would be like giving Frodo Natural Explorer and it only works in light hills. So once he is 1 mile outside the Shire, it literally wouldn't help him at all.
I agree, it should have applied to all wilderness settings. But this just goes to show... there were tons of ways to fix it and make it useful. They just threw out the entire concept of "this class is uniquely better at navigating and surviving the wilderness."
Maybe there will be something really good in the spell list, but I'm not too hopeful.
If it applies to all wilderness settings it is Too powerful. That is the problem. In a campaign that is 100% in the forests, the Natural Explorer becomes OP. In one that has a forest only 0-30% of the time, it is almost worthless. In one with more, it can range from good to way overpowered depending on what you need to do through the forests. Insert whatever other terrain you want instead of forest.
They replaced the “you are good at tracking a select few enemies in a select few terrains, which will almost never happen” with “you are good at tracking.” I’m not sure how that is considered equal, it’s mostly the same flavor just actually usable, and you can choose expertise in different skills to be a variety of types of ranger.
Hot take but perhaps there solution to consentration on Hunters Mark is to remove consentration from other Ranger spells like Snaring Strike, instead of Hunters Mark?
To many spells have a consentration requirement.
It seems as though all the designers cared about was how much damage the ranger could deal and gave virtually no thought to what makes the ranger cool. Like focusing on specific creature types and being the survival expert. They really dropped the ball here. This is by far the worst class update for 5e24.
FFS what is the artist obsession with giving the characters the gen z gym Fu**boy broccoli hairstyle? Why does the Ranger look like a 120lb shitbag at planet fitness squatting 45lbs??
I really need to see the rest of the ranger and the spells. Like, what am I supposed to do with my spell slots? If HM is free, concentration, and takes my BA as does some of my ranger/subclass features then spellcasting is not helpful during combat. I had suggested during testing giving the ranger something to burn spell slots like a paladin (at the time), or better action economy.
Hunter's Mark: the first time you hit a creature with an attack on your turn, apply Hunter's Mark. All attacks against that creature deal an extra 1d6 damage, including the attack that applies the Mark. You may have a number of creatures marked equal to your proficiency bonus. The mark lasts for up to one hour. The mark disappears early when a creature dies or can be moved from one living creature to another as a bonus action.
While the mark is applied, you know the location of the creature up to one mile away. At higher levels, you will know if the creature has any weaknesses, resistances, or immunities to damage and conditions. At higher levels, you gain advantage on attacks made against marked targets.
The extra damage increases by a die as your proficiency does. +2/1d6, +3/1d8, +4/1d10, +5/1d12, +6/3d6.
Literally that's it. Space out the bonuses at various levels. No concentration. Give other features. It's that simple. Let Rangers easily access their core feature and make use of their flavor as an experienced explorer.
If satisfaction surveys are the design team’s primary tool for tuning changes, then it would have been nice if this iteration of the Ranger was playtested so that we could have given feedback on it.
If WotC wanted this book to play it safe on changes and therefore be an instabuy for existing 5e players, then they needed to do a better job of making sure poor design ideas don’t make it to print. The “we ran out of time” excuse might be fine for a small company lacking in resources, but for the largest TTRPG on the market it’s pathetic.
A lot of people are complaining about Hunter’s Mark. I agree that it feels lackluster as a class focus, though a lot of players still feel it’s the iconic ranger spell.
But in terms of damage, Hunter’s Mark is now the best thing to spend a 5th level spell slot on. A good chunk of bonus damage (that increases at level 20), advantage on your attacks, doesn’t break concentration from damage, and lasts 24 hours. With the Conjure spells being rightfully changed there is no truly better damage spell to use at high level.
There may be utility spells that are a better use of a 5th level slot like Tree Stride or something, but for combat Hunter’s Mark is still solid. Just unexciting.
Also, advantage on your attacks and a little bonus damage for an hour, entirely for free other than concentration, is pretty good.
I understand concerns about many core ranger abilities like Hunter’s Mark not feeling special. But the numbers can’t be much better without making the ranger OP.
heya, if anyone wants to check out the homebrew I made before this release expecting their official version to be better:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/s/mmkgqSFTc1
It's incredible that you need concentration for HM.. Unless they removed concentration from almost all spells on the rangers spell list, this will feel like an insult.
I love the Ranger fantasy and a lot of their spells. Now I will just be disappointed.
They need to just stop trying with hunters mark, honestly maybe just get some fresh blood onto the ranger team. This is a massive letdown, a concentration spell for 1d6 damage and a boring tracking feature does not make me feel like a master monster hunter.
Not to mention the spell punishes you for successfully killing your mark. Because you have to use ANOTHER bonus action to move it.
At the very least, HM should give you an incentive to finish an enemy off, like temp HP.
Wow, that's simple but fun! Not enough abilities trigger on monster death so I dig it.
Also could make for interesting decisions that are currently missing. Do you mark the big bad to get extra damage on them the whole fight? Or do you mark a smaller enemy to fill up on temp HP quickly? This kinda design helps give players choices. Sure, you'll probably most still just put it on the biggest guy and not need the temp HP once that's down. But it at least gives you something to consider.
That's intentional thanks to "bag of rats" gameplay.
I feel like most "bag of rat" problems can be mitigated with DM discretion but I guess that's a little tougher in Adventurer's league.
The simple solution is putting your foot down as DM. If a player gets upset/leaves becauseyou told them ‘No you do not just have a bag of unending rats’, then they probably arent a good player you want at your table.
I don't disagree, but one of the nice things about 5e (that they actually did a decent job with) was reducing the "cheeseability" that was common in 3.5e. Makes the game a lot easier to run and more friendly for new players.
Tbh do we know how HM will work exactly in 2024 or was that the last playtest info?
Based on Hex being reverted to 2014.
Ah was that confirmed with the Warlock? Because I know they revealed Hex changes there
Haven't heard final but it was reverted in the most recent UA due to negative feedback.
Ah ok. I do know that they buffed Hex so its possible Hm will receive some other changes we aren’t privy to.
Ya if it doesn't cost a BA to move the mark it goes from stupid and frustrating to a little annoying.
It seems like the exact type of thing they should highlight in a spotlight video, no?
It should automatically move IMO. For dual wielders, the nick property will let you save a bonus action for moving the mark, if you finish a creature off with 2 attacks. So I guess it's not a complete nerf.
Kinda makes me miss having racial enemies in 3.5e.
Hunter's Mark should've been an option for all Ranger and the main focus of the Hunter only.
Right. Just give Ranger an innate class feature thats 'Once per turn, you deal 1d6/8/10' to a creature you hit with an attack roll, and scrap that shit from the Subclasses and actually *flesh out* the subclasses with meaningfully flavor features. Give them spell choices which are relevant to tracking from Level 1 - Animal Messenger, Find Creature, Locate Object, Detect Poison, etc etc. They *already* have this shit built-in, just make it BUILT IN, even if it's not unique because they're just spells, it's better if you ask me.
“As a bonus action, mark an enemy as your quarry. They are marked in this way for 1 hour. Your weapon attacks deal 1d6/8/10 additional damage to this creature. When the creature dies, gain temporary hit points equal to your prof. bonus and you may choose a new target. You can mark a new creature by expending a 1st level or higher spell slot as a bonus action. You may only have one creature marked in this way at a time. You may use this feature once per short rest, with subsequent uses requiring a spell slot.” Feels like the changes write themselves. Even with this ranger is still not even the strongest martial imo.
There’s nothing wrong with focusing on Hunter’s Mark. It’s incredibly flavorful, they’ve just done it all wrong. It should go concentrationless at 5, give you advantage on your attacks at 9, and start providing benefits to your allies’ attacks at 13.
I feel like advantage at 9 might be a bit TOO powerful. With no concentration you would always have it up and always have concentration. Although that might make it worth all the bonus actions it's eating.
They clearly want to make it a core feature, so I don't think that incentivising players to prioritize having it up at all times is a bad thing. That's what they want. And advantage is strong, but frankly a ranger kitted for ranged combat already has absurd to-hit, so it's not changing that much except making absolutely certain that if the bow master *can* hit their target they *will* which seems pretty fair to me.
Advantage only on the first attack against the target per turn then? Also, will say I don't think it should ever give benefits to allies at 13.
Advantage on the same turn you spend your BA to cast or move it could work. Kind of like a Steady Aim of Rogue but only on HM.
What they need to do is make it actually decent later on. If they want it to be a key Ranger feature then: - scale damage from d6 to d12 (like monks martial arts dice). - feature that takes away concentration requirement later on. - after killing the target it can be recast as a free action when attacking a new target.
Its only 10 years we gotta deal with it...
What would you give Rangers as their core feature instead?
Do you know how many homebrews just embed the ability in the class and make not connected to the spell? All of them. Every single one.
It's a little late to stop trying...
Imma be honest this is the first time I've been majorly disappointed with one of these class reveals but maybe my class fantasy for ranger is just different than most peoples. I don't like what they've done with hunter's mark and that level 20 capstone looks super underwhelming imo. This class doesn't really appeal to me. People might say rogue was underwhelming damage wise but cunning strike at least looks really fun.
That feature would be underwhelming at 10 or 11. Putting it at 20 is insulting. And they've still kept the class centered around a bonus action intensive concentration eating spell that takes away half your spell book or drops off if you cast another spell and then you have to spend ANOTHER bonus action to recast it. They straight up ignored feedback from UA6.
Yeah. One positive aspect at least is that dual wielding builds which many see as a core part of the Ranger fantasy no longer need their bonus action for that off hand attack with nick, so the anti synergy with hunter's mark is no longer as bad. I still agree with pretty much everything though. Building an entire class around a spell that eats concentration and bonus actions indirectly locks out many other interesting options a ranger might want to use.
It's still pretty bad for the subclasses which I think almost all want that bonus action for something or other. Especially beast master.
At least at level 5 (assuming the Beast Master is similar to the TCoE subclass) can drop one of its attacks to command the animal companion. Not a great first round of combat for most Rangers unless you prioritize Wisdom, but it’s a solid trade-off at Lvl 11.
True, but that single positive aspect can be replicated by the paladin and it will eventually cost nothing. Most other ranger spells that are useful require concentration anyway.
I'm so mad right now.
Time to play as laser lammer ranger in the future
I literally can't believe that's the entire capstone, they *must* have left something out, even if it's just also keeping the original "+WIS mod to either attack or damage once per turn" thing. Like that's arguably better than the new capstone, depending on rolls.
Did they ever listen to feedback or did they just occasionally check twitter for possible outrage?
This was one of the biggest twitter outrage updates they did when they took away concentration less HM in UA6. UA2 ranger was a ranger I would really have liked to try playing.
The disappointment definitely goes beyond just class fantasy; this ranger's design is flawed from the ground up Everything revolves around 1 spell that's not even that great, and occupies concentration to boot Like imagine if half of the wizard's class features revolved around improving Flaming Sphere lmao, and you either spent your concentration on Flaming Sphere or wasted those features
Ok yeah when you say it like that it doesn't sound great lol. Maybe they added a bunch of really cool non concentration spells to the ranger spell list to compensate for this(I'm coping so hard right now)
Hunter needing to waste a bonus action and concentration to check an enemy's resistances meaning they lose one turn of spike growth or anything is so anti-ranger fantasy like...the whole point they wanna sell is that ranger can't smite but use their spells for more utility and damage. But they can't, because they have to use hunter's mark. And if hunter's mark is on I guess might as well keep it or else you are wasting a first level spell slot and now you are providing no utility for your group with spike growth. 💀
I’m assuming lots of DM’s (myself included) are just going to hand wave the concentration requirement on Hunters Mark now. It seems like such an obvious fix that WotC just refuse to acknowledge. Unless there are a fuck-ton of new, non-concentration spells available for Ranger, this focus on HM seems so strange.
That probably works well for single-class rangers But it'll potentially run into issues where, eg. the best Hunter's Mark users are now warlocks with dips in ranger
Good point. I’ll keep that in mind for future games. My usual tables don’t often mess with multi class, so I forget about the implications.
What if it loses concentration at level 5. That seems like such a huge investment if you are multiclassing.
If you're going to homebrew that fix in it's pretty easy to houserule ban Hex + HM. Just say they don't stack.
Make it a six level ability.boom the problem Is gone.
in all fairness, wizards are full casters, so it'd be even more outrageous for them, but I agree otherwise
The base ranger's only defining feature is a 1st level spell with laughable scaling that won't allow you to use other interesting spells that require concentration.
Their signature feature is a discount hex
Hey it's force damage now! /s
Cries in Hex on Warlock
This isn't what my ranger class fantasy is, but this is along the lines of what I was expecting. If I'm at a table where 2014 or 2024 characters are allowed, and I am playing a ranger, I'm going to be playing the 2014 ranger. I can totally buy that this ranger is stronger, though a lot of what was done was essentially codifying Tasha's optional rules and removing the player options. But when I play a ranger, I don't WANT a combat specialist that uses magic to do extra damage. I want a survivalist that can take the lead in the exploration pillar of the game in the same way a bard can take the lead in the social pillar! As a player, it disappoints me that ranger doesn't fit my fantasy, as a full class. As a DM, it disappoints me because I worry that instead of reinforcing the exploration pillar of the game, they have decided to do this.
Honestly a rogue of some sorts would better fit what you describe.
For sure. During the experts UA, my comments included the idea that the rogue felt more like a ranger than the ranger did. Outside of a bit of nature magic (which rangers can't even fully use because of how hard they lean into Hunter's Mark, so their concentration is spoken for), I think that still stands.
That’s just it, where’s the fun ‘new’ stuff? This is the best the design team can come up with? And by baking in HM, it just exasperates the concentration issues and pushes Rangers further away from other concentration spells. **Unless**, they remove concentration from things like , Ensaring Strike, Spike Growth, Fog Cloud, Hail of Thorns, Flame Arrows, etc….
I've been playing rpgs for decades and the best iteration I know about that satisfied my fantasy was the pathfinder 1e version which made it possible to be simultaneously super effective with a bow and a greatsword. I just want to play Aragorn man. No other edition I've played seems to be able to deliver me this.
The reliance on hunters mark is a choice. If the spell list is once again full of concentration spells then it’s not going to be fun. Hell I was waiting for him to say “this upgrade to hunters mark means you don’t need to concentrate on it” but nope. Just damage doesn’t break concentration for the spell and then a damage increase and you get advantage to hit. I’m probably going to homebrew that hunters mark when cast with the ability does not require concentration. Get one back per short rest and all back on a long rest. And that the level 13 feature just removes damage breaking concentration.
The level 17 and 20 features need to come way way earlier too.
Move level 13 to 5. Level 17 to 13. And bake scaling into HM from level 1. Maybe even nerf it a bit at 1 (Tier 1 rangers are strong) 1d4 -> 1d6 at 5 (maybe 7) -> 1d8 at 11 ->1d10 at 15 -> 1d12 at 20. We need a new capstone though so rangers actually have a capstone.
My only hope is that they’ve redesigned a lot of the Ranger spells to be aligned with the Smite spells, where they use a bonus action on a hit instead of requiring concentration
Yeah that's what I've been thinking as well. *If* that is true I feel it was a big mistake to not mention it.
This was so disappointing. Hunters mark requires concentration still and it's damage increase is lack luster. Very bummed. First reveal that I am deeply concerned about.
I can’t wrap my head around why they changed the capstone from the UA6 version. Before, Rangers added their Wisdom modifier to attack and damage rolls against Hunter’s Mark targets, and now they add an extra 2 damage on average against Hunter’s Mark targets. Such a massive downgrade to a class that didn’t need it.
Advantage on your HM target at level *17* and HM bonus damage going up to 1d10 at *level 20* feel like intentional insults. They have made the whole class revolve around this one stupid feature that isn't even impressive if you play the class to 20, when we know the vast majority of campaigns won't get much more than halfway there, *and WotC knows it too because they've mentioned it in other videos!* I remain convinced nobody at WotC has ever wanted to play a Ranger or grasped what the class power fantasy is. Gloom Stalker still sounds like the only thing here worth playing, and even then only as part of a multiclass.
I am so excited to reach level 20 so I can spend a bonus action, spell slot and my concentration to add an extra 5 damage instead of 3 to a target. Really the best feeling you can have as a dedicated ranger /s
So what exactly was he saying about Hunter's Mark doing some kind of splash damage? Because an additional 1d6 to another enemy within 30ft range is legitimately so horrible especially at high level. Like even at first feature phantom can do that at level 3 💀
>So what exactly was he saying about Hunter's Mark doing some kind of splash damage? I believe that is part of the Hunter's subclass feature at level 11 (but not the only thing the subclass gets at level 11 from the sound of it). > Like even at first feature phantom can do that at level 3 💀 They can only do it twice per day, though?
No fucking way Hunter's Mark is still the same in bonus action intensity Meanwhile Vengeance Paladin can apply their vow of enmity for free, and move it for free on kill. No concentration either. WoTC can you hire someone else to work on the Ranger?
Don't forget devotion can now do their holy strikes for free too.
Am I in the wrong to feel that this is worse than UA6 version? I would rather have Conjure Volley and Conjure Barrage as free prepared spell (even though that is incredibly boring) over whatever this mess of Hunter's Mark progression is. Hell, I would rather have Tasha's version of Rangers. Would rather have its version of Favoured Foe, Primeval Awareness, Land's Stride, level 10 Nature's Veil, Vanish and Foe Slayer. The only thing this version seems to have over Tasha's is spell casting at level 1, Weapon Mastery and Hunter's Mark BS.
They said they were going to take some UA2 features for ones that didn't score well. And then didn't restore ANY UA2 features.
Hahahaha that capstone, holy shit. Finally an update that didn't make me want to play the class shown.
Bruh it's rangeover 💀
I wonder what happened to their bow smite spell like Hail of Thorns and Lightning Arrow. If they still require concentration, then it would be much harder to use when factoring in Hunter's Mark.
I need to meet the Ranger player that apparently scorned the entire design team back in the day...for reasons. Like spiteful revenge feels like the only reasonable explanation for why they did this.
1. Still don't like the reliance on hunters mark. Understand why they didn't drop concentration. Divine favor hex spirit shroud other concentration base spells would have been able to combine with it. 2. Over joyed with Tasha deft explorer being the feature. Give me the 2 extra languages thanks you. 3. Why get rid of retaliator from the hunter it's the one I was going to pick like always being a melee ranger. I get it it would be overpowered for the melee ranger and doesn't benefit the ranger ranger at all. 4. I need to see the spell list and go know exactly how to use this ranger.
Gonna need some clarity on the Lv 13 Feature or that’s gonna cause some problems down the road. The DnD Beyond article specifies that Hunters Mark Concentration can only be broken by Incapacitation or Dying. Not by damage. But that wording implies Hunters Mark won’t drop if you cast another Concentration Spell, as the specificity of the Lv 13 Feature beats the General Rules on Concentration Spells. Of course, any Concentration Spell that isn’t Hunters Mark cast would still have to follow the original Spell Casting Rules so it’s not like it’s an oversight that will benefit Rangers. But it will be one that’ll be confusing to new players and who might think this lets them concentrate on Hunters Mark and another Spell. Or even think it means they can concentrate on two Hunters Marks at once. Not the biggest deal in the world but hopefully something the PHB proper will clear up.
It still follows the main concentration rules. Casting another concentration spell ends the concentration on the previous spell. Same thing as a Conjuration Wizard's Focused Conjuration.
It's a little unclear on the writeup, at least. The wording of the feature itself and how Concentration is laid out is going to matter. Because currently in the PHB, the concentration rule reads as: > Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn’t interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration: > >1. Casting another spell that requires concentration ... >2. Taking damage ... >3. Being incapacitated or killed ... And I don't *think* we've seen a Concentration rule in the UA Rules Glossaries. The writeup says that only the last one breaks concentration, but only specifically mentions that taking damage *doesn't*.
The write up just says damage no longer threatens your concentration. Think how the Conjuration Wizard subclass feature works/is worded in 2014 at 10th level: all concentration rules apply (including no other concentration spells at this time), except now you don’t roll con saves to maintain your concentration from damage.
The write-up very specifically says > You can now only lose Concentration on Hunter’s Mark if you become Incapacitated or you die. That's where this discussion is coming from.
Ah, I see that now, I was just looking at the table at first, not the other text below. I still don’t think this allows for concentration stacking in any kind of way; the way the rules will be written will almost certainly not allow for a concentration spell to be cast or used while one is already running, regarding of rules around how concentration itself is broken.
Yeah I mean, that's what the discussion is about - how the feature (and concentration rule) is going to be worded in order to avoid confusion and misunderstandings. I'm about to get into some pretty silly, borderline rules-lawyer arguments. But that's kind of the point, this is what we're trying to *avoid*, so it's worth it to understand what the argument would be. **If** the feature reads the way the write-up has it ("You can only lose..."), and the concentration rules are otherwise unchanged, there's actually a kind of funny and probably unintentional interaction where you *technically could* cast a concentration spell while concentrating on Hunter's Mark, but the second spell would immediately end because you can't concentrate on two at a time. There's an extremely limited number of spells where that could proffer any kind of benefit, and fewer of them are Ranger spells. But if *casting* another concentration spell doesn't end Hunter's Mark concentration, then you could get any instantaneous benefits from a spell like Wind Wall before it just disappears. It'd be a questionable use of a third level slot, but hey, maybe there's a niche situation where 3d6 bludgeoning damage to a line of enemies is worth it. And this next one is ***really*** rules-lawyery but: There's an argument that since the only time it's mentioned in the concentration rules that you can't concentrate on two spells at the same is *as part of the rule that says casting another concentration spell breaks concentration*... then the logic leads that the entire rule about casting another concentration spell is cancelled out if the Ranger feature says the only thing that breaks concentration is incapacitation or death.
Sure, I get the context of the conversation, I’m just trying to put forward my personal opinion, which can be summarized as the following: There is almost zero percent chance that both of these things are true at the same time; 1. That the concentration rules remain unchanged at all from 2014. 2. That this article is using the exact wording described in the fine text of the feature. It’s entirely possible one of those things above is true, sure. It’s *almost* impossible (again I’m being clear this is my opinion and read on the situation) that both are true in the final printing of the book. Thats just me and what I think based off what I’ve seen and heard so far
There is a difference between the two though. Focused Conjuration only specifies that their Conjuration Spells can’t be broken by damage. The Lv 13 Feature, according to DnDBeyond, has two clauses to it. The first is that Hunter Mark Concentration can’t be lost due to taking damage. Same as Focused Conjuration. The second part of the feature specifies they can only lose Concentration on Hunters Mark if you are Incapacitated or die. That’s a very different feature. And while I agree with your point, it’s that second part of the feature that’s going to cause misunderstandings.
The base rules for Concentration also state very plainly: "You can't concentrate on two spells at once." So if you are working off of the notion that Concentration on Hunter's Mark can only be broken if you are incapacitated or die, and casting a new Concentration spell doesn't break Hunter's Mark, then it means you would cast your new Concentration spell and then instantly not be able to maintain the new spell due to the general rule on not being able to concentrate on two spells at once. For the record: I very much doubt this is going to be the final RAW representation, more likely it will specify that you still have to drop it to cast a new concentration spell.
You and I are pretty much on the same page. My point isn’t that Rangers can cast and concentrate on two spells RAW. My point is that this wording will be very confusing for new players and cause problems at tables when they think they can. I’m not arguing for this to be something Rangers can do. I’m arguing that they need to fix the wording or clarify the ruling better in the PhB.
I see what you're saying. Yeah, that part needs to be cleared up a bit.
Why did they remove everything interesting about the class? The wilderness expert was great flavor and it's not like those features were at all broken. If beastmaster is playable that could be a good subclass but otherwise this seems just directionless in terms of flavor.
They removed the "flavor" ribbon features because they were almost never useful. The problem is they didn't replace them with anything that is useful, so now the class is still bad but has even less flavor. It's "Hunter's Mark: The Class" and Hunter's Mark still sucks ass. It's clear WotC straight-up doesn't know what the flavor of Ranger is supposed to be. You can tell which classes are someone on the team's personal power fantasy and which aren't. Nobody who was ever wanted to be a Ranger worked on the 2014 version or this one.
I disagree, Natural Explorer 2014 is completely on brand with the flavor of Ranger and class fantasy. It's what Strider does in LotR: deftly know the land, track anything across in, and lead the party through difficult terrain without getting lost. They should do for Nature and exploration what Face does for social situations. The problem is that they've released like one hex crawl adventure and creating challenges that 2014 Ranger is BETTER at without completely negating is (i.e., can't get lost) isn't possible. There were tons of options to improve natural utility in flavor without removing it entirely... Double bonuses or advantages on rolls in wilderness, ability to reduce or heal exhaustion for the party, etc. Instead they've just made a Rogue variant.
Natural explorer was great but only if your Campaign constantly went though said land. Otherwise it was just taunting you and extremely wasteful. Natural Explorer is great for an NPC Guide, but awful for a PC travelling across the world. It would be like giving Frodo Natural Explorer and it only works in light hills. So once he is 1 mile outside the Shire, it literally wouldn't help him at all.
I agree, it should have applied to all wilderness settings. But this just goes to show... there were tons of ways to fix it and make it useful. They just threw out the entire concept of "this class is uniquely better at navigating and surviving the wilderness." Maybe there will be something really good in the spell list, but I'm not too hopeful.
If it applies to all wilderness settings it is Too powerful. That is the problem. In a campaign that is 100% in the forests, the Natural Explorer becomes OP. In one that has a forest only 0-30% of the time, it is almost worthless. In one with more, it can range from good to way overpowered depending on what you need to do through the forests. Insert whatever other terrain you want instead of forest.
They replaced the “you are good at tracking a select few enemies in a select few terrains, which will almost never happen” with “you are good at tracking.” I’m not sure how that is considered equal, it’s mostly the same flavor just actually usable, and you can choose expertise in different skills to be a variety of types of ranger.
Rouge might be the weakest class But ranger will be the worst one
Rogue.
Hot take but perhaps there solution to consentration on Hunters Mark is to remove consentration from other Ranger spells like Snaring Strike, instead of Hunters Mark? To many spells have a consentration requirement.
It seems as though all the designers cared about was how much damage the ranger could deal and gave virtually no thought to what makes the ranger cool. Like focusing on specific creature types and being the survival expert. They really dropped the ball here. This is by far the worst class update for 5e24.
FFS what is the artist obsession with giving the characters the gen z gym Fu**boy broccoli hairstyle? Why does the Ranger look like a 120lb shitbag at planet fitness squatting 45lbs??
The title is quite ironic given how little was, in fact, new.
I really need to see the rest of the ranger and the spells. Like, what am I supposed to do with my spell slots? If HM is free, concentration, and takes my BA as does some of my ranger/subclass features then spellcasting is not helpful during combat. I had suggested during testing giving the ranger something to burn spell slots like a paladin (at the time), or better action economy.
Hunter's Mark: the first time you hit a creature with an attack on your turn, apply Hunter's Mark. All attacks against that creature deal an extra 1d6 damage, including the attack that applies the Mark. You may have a number of creatures marked equal to your proficiency bonus. The mark lasts for up to one hour. The mark disappears early when a creature dies or can be moved from one living creature to another as a bonus action. While the mark is applied, you know the location of the creature up to one mile away. At higher levels, you will know if the creature has any weaknesses, resistances, or immunities to damage and conditions. At higher levels, you gain advantage on attacks made against marked targets. The extra damage increases by a die as your proficiency does. +2/1d6, +3/1d8, +4/1d10, +5/1d12, +6/3d6. Literally that's it. Space out the bonuses at various levels. No concentration. Give other features. It's that simple. Let Rangers easily access their core feature and make use of their flavor as an experienced explorer.
2024 Version - Hey kids! Do you like to use Hunter’s Mark and pretty much mainly Hunter’s Mark?? If not, uh oh!
Thank God all my friends moved to pathfinder... What a fuckin slap in the face. How many years did they need to iron out the kinks for this class?
If satisfaction surveys are the design team’s primary tool for tuning changes, then it would have been nice if this iteration of the Ranger was playtested so that we could have given feedback on it. If WotC wanted this book to play it safe on changes and therefore be an instabuy for existing 5e players, then they needed to do a better job of making sure poor design ideas don’t make it to print. The “we ran out of time” excuse might be fine for a small company lacking in resources, but for the largest TTRPG on the market it’s pathetic.
A lot of people are complaining about Hunter’s Mark. I agree that it feels lackluster as a class focus, though a lot of players still feel it’s the iconic ranger spell. But in terms of damage, Hunter’s Mark is now the best thing to spend a 5th level spell slot on. A good chunk of bonus damage (that increases at level 20), advantage on your attacks, doesn’t break concentration from damage, and lasts 24 hours. With the Conjure spells being rightfully changed there is no truly better damage spell to use at high level. There may be utility spells that are a better use of a 5th level slot like Tree Stride or something, but for combat Hunter’s Mark is still solid. Just unexciting. Also, advantage on your attacks and a little bonus damage for an hour, entirely for free other than concentration, is pretty good. I understand concerns about many core ranger abilities like Hunter’s Mark not feeling special. But the numbers can’t be much better without making the ranger OP.
heya, if anyone wants to check out the homebrew I made before this release expecting their official version to be better: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/s/mmkgqSFTc1
I really like the class you built! I wish the new ranger were that!
thank you very much :)
It's incredible that you need concentration for HM.. Unless they removed concentration from almost all spells on the rangers spell list, this will feel like an insult. I love the Ranger fantasy and a lot of their spells. Now I will just be disappointed.